Introduction to Financial Surveillance
The US is on the brink of enacting rules for digital assets, with growing bipartisan momentum to modernize our financial system. But amid all the talk about innovation and global competitiveness, one issue has been glaringly absent: financial privacy. As we build the digital infrastructure of the 21st century, we need to talk about not just what’s possible but what’s acceptable. That means confronting the expanding surveillance powers quietly embedded in our financial system, which today can track nearly every transaction without a warrant.
The Bank Secrecy Act: A Nixon-Era Law
Many Americans may associate financial surveillance with authoritarian regimes. Yet because of a Nixon-era law called the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and the digitization of finance over the past half-century, financial privacy is under increasingly serious threat here at home. Most Americans don’t realize they live under an expansive surveillance regime that likely violates their constitutional rights. Every purchase, deposit, and transaction, from the smallest Venmo payment for a coffee to a large hospital bill, creates a data point in a system that watches you—even if you’ve done nothing wrong.
The Impact on Law Enforcement and Citizens
As a former federal prosecutor, I care deeply about giving law enforcement the tools it needs to keep us safe. But the status quo doesn’t make us safer. It creates a false sense of security while quietly and permanently eroding the constitutional rights of millions of Americans. When Congress enacted the BSA in 1970, cash was king and organized crime was the target. The law created a scheme whereby, ever since, banks have been required to keep certain records on their customers and turn them over to law enforcement upon request.
The Third-Party Doctrine
Unlike a search warrant, which must be issued by a judge or magistrate upon a showing of probable cause that a crime was committed and that specific evidence of that crime exists in the place to be searched, this power is exercised with no checks or balances. A prosecutor can “cut a subpoena”—demanding all your bank records for the past 10 years—with no judicial oversight or limitation on scope, and at no cost to the government. The burden falls entirely on the bank. In contrast, a proper search warrant must be narrowly tailored, with probable cause and judicial authorization. In United States v. Miller (1976), the Supreme Court upheld the BSA, reasoning that citizens have no “legitimate expectation of privacy” about information shared with third parties, like banks. Thus began the third-party doctrine, enabling law enforcement to access financial records without a warrant.
The Evolution of Financial Surveillance
The BSA has been amended several times over the years (most notoriously in 2001 as a part of the Patriot Act), imposing an ever-growing list of recordkeeping obligations on an ever-growing list of financial institutions. Today, it is virtually inescapable for everyday Americans. In the 1970s, when the BSA was enacted, banking and noncash payments were conducted predominantly through physical means: writing checks, visiting bank branches, and using passbooks. For cash transactions, the BSA required reporting of transactions over the kingly sum of $10,000, a figure that was not pegged to inflation and remains the same today. And given the nature of banking services and the technology available at the time, individuals conducted just a handful of noncash payments per month.
Modern Financial Transactions
Today, consumers make at least one payment or banking transaction a day, and just an estimated 16% of those are in cash. Meanwhile, emerging technologies further expand the footprint of financial data. Add to this the massive pools of personal information already collected by technology platforms—location history, search activity, communications metadata—and you create a world where financial surveillance can be linked to virtually every aspect of your identity, movement, and behavior.
Effectiveness and Consequences
Nor does the BSA actually appear to be effective at achieving its aims. In fiscal year 2024, financial institutions filed about 4.7 million Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and over 20 million currency transaction reports. Instead of stopping major crime, the system floods law enforcement with low-value information, overwhelming agents and obscuring real threats. Mass surveillance often reduces effectiveness by drowning law enforcement in noise. But while it doesn’t stop hackers, the BSA creates a trove of permanent info on everyone. Worse still, the incentives are misaligned and asymmetrical. To avoid liability, financial institutions are required to report anything remotely suspicious. If they fail to file a SAR, they risk serious penalties—even indictment. But they face no consequences for overreporting.
Conclusion
The vast over!collection of data is the unsurprising result. These practices, developed under regulations, require clearer guardrails so that executive branch actors can more safely outsource surveillance duties to private institutions. It’s crucial for Americans to understand the implications of the BSA and the expanding surveillance powers in the financial system. As we move forward with modernizing our financial system, we must prioritize financial privacy and ensure that any new regulations or technologies are designed with privacy and security in mind.
FAQs
- Q: What is the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)?
A: The Bank Secrecy Act is a law enacted in 1970 that requires financial institutions to keep records of their customers’ transactions and to report certain transactions to the government. - Q: Why was the BSA created?
A: The BSA was created to help law enforcement agencies detect and prevent organized crime, particularly money laundering. - Q: How does the BSA affect my financial privacy?
A: The BSA allows law enforcement agencies to access your financial records without a warrant, which can erode your financial privacy. - Q: Is the BSA effective in stopping crime?
A: The effectiveness of the BSA in stopping crime is debated. While it generates a large amount of data, this can sometimes overwhelm law enforcement and make it harder to identify real threats. - Q: What can be done to protect financial privacy?
A: To protect financial privacy, there needs to be a balance between giving law enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe and protecting citizens’ rights. This can involve clearer regulations, better oversight, and ensuring that any surveillance is proportionate and necessary.
